JUDGE PHILLIPS: Correction, it is Prosecution Exhibit 56 rather than 46.
DR. HEIM: Just a moment please, your Honors. I beg your pardon, it is No. 56, Exhibit No. 56.
Q. (By Dr. Heim) The letter deals with the setting up of SS construction brigades which consist of inmates, Jews, P. W.'s, etc. Did you at the time have any knowledge about this letter?
A. I can't recall that any longer. It says there informational to the so-called Amtsgruppe W. The Chief of Amtsgruppe W was Herr Pohl. Herr Pohl must have been informed by that about that by Dr. Kammler. If Herr Pohl passed on a letter on that I really don't know, dependent on his mood on that date.
Q. In this Document Book No. III I shall refer to Page 80 of the German document book and Page 78 of the English document book, and there you will find Document NO-1029, Prosecution Exhibit No. 65. It is a letter by the Chief of Office W-I to Staff W for "William" and it deals with the contract, with the Reich, concerning concentration-camp inmate labor. Did you at the time gain knowledge of this particular document?
A. No, those negotiations were probably carried out or carried on by W-I independently, and possibly all this occurred after I left, because after all I left in the middle of 1943.
Q. Was it before the 30th of June, 1943, the same way that those matters were dealt with by Staff W?
A. I should know that for sure, because from the mail conferences which we had I could tell you approximately what those people dealt with. But as far as I can recall it never did occur that anybody ever dealt with such things in Staff W.
Q. What does this document prove as far as you are concerned?
A. That is, well, I came-- I left before that, and therefore I couldn't have dealt with it, and on the other hand it is probably proved they dealt with those things later, after my departure.
Q. Can't you read, can't you understand from this document that from that particular moment only Staff W was used for these purposes?
A. Yes, that is what it says here. On the basis of the regulations concerning dealing with those things they fall into the competence of Staff W. That is the first time I ever read such a statement. That must have been after my time.
Q. In the Document 1039, which has been discussed in part, Exhibit 384 contained in Document Book No. XIV, introduced by the Prosecution -
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess, Dr. Heim, until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty. There will be no session here this afternoon.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 16 July 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal II in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 16 July 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
DR. HANS HOHBERG - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
DR. HEIM: Dr. Heim for the defendant Hohberg.
May it please your Honors, before I continue the examination of the defendant, I would like to make certain fundamental remarks at this point which refer to the examination of the defendant so far and to the introduction of evidence which will be further introduced for the defendant Hohberg.
The defendant has repeatedly stated that at that time he was an opponent of National Socialism and of the SS on principle and that he stressed that point by making derogatory and sarcastic remarks concerning the SS in general and against individual SS leaders of the WVHA. This fact that the defendant at the time made such remarks and statements, is not only proved by the statements made by the defendant on the stand, witness, but also by affidavits and testimonies of witnesses.
Now, the impression could be created that this line of testimony or evidence has as its aim to incriminate all the other co-defendants who were all SS leaders, and thus by incriminating these people to exonerate the defendant Hohberg. I would like to state here explicitly that this is not wanted, nor is it intended, but rather that this line of evidence has the explicit aim to prove that Dr. Hohberg cannot really be accused of the crimes charged against him by the Prosecution, that he was outside the zone which is subject of the trial, and that furthermore, he did not only refuse that, but he also opposed it openly.
It is the right of the defendant, and it is my duty as a defense counsel to tell you those facts in order to help you give a just judgment, the same right as anybody before a Spruchkammer has today, even though the scale there is much smaller than here.
With your permission I shall continue the examination of the defendant Hohberg.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, yesterday we stopped with the questions concerning the wage scales for inmates. In the document which we discussed in part, NO-1039, Exhibit 384 in Document Book No. XV introduced by the Prosecution, on Page 23 of the German, there is a document concerning tasks of Staff W which have not been completed. Under paragraph 4 you are also speaking of an compensation treasury. Did the compensation treasury have anything to do with the labor assignment of concentration camp inmates?
A. Yes, it did have something to do with inmate labor. In certain individual firms there was no thought of working normally because the inmates were put at the disposal of the factory in different strength daily, and as on certain days there were no inmates at all at the disposal of the factory, the fixed expenses in the factories continued a coverage for them. The idea of this compensation treasury was to prevent that by a closing-down of the factory due to an unregular number of inmates working there, expenses, or rather losses were incurred. It had been a necessary consequence, before, that all those losses had to be made up for by working overtime or by working harder. That was no longer necessary now. It was sufficient to simply apply to this self-insurance fund. How necessary this compensation treasury was can also be seen from a document which is contained in Document Book No. III, Exhibit No. 453, Page 114 of the document book.
I am sorry, it is Book No. 17. It is on Page 153 of the English document book. It is stated there how the man in charge of the firm groups "food enterprises", Vogel - V-o-g-e-l - turned in a report to Herr Pohl and states that losses were incurred by the fact that inmates did not come and report to work. His answer is also contained in that document and contains considerable complaints.
According to German taxation law things are the following way: There is no possibility to have a self-insurance fund and to be able to carry-out transfers to this fund without paying tax for it. Therefore, it was necessary to legalize this whole self-insurance fund. That is the reason why when I left I made the suggestion to give this insurance company a mutual insurance company aspect and legalize it thus. The compensation fund was absolutely new, and the premiums were not as yet fixed. They had to be found out first. In reality, however, this fund did not become legalized so that it has to be stated now that according to German taxation law these ten millions which were in the fund at last could not possibly be taxed. The profits according to taxation law would have been higher if this had been submitted.
Q. Witness, the Prosecution furthermore charges you that you participated the spolitiation of private and state property in the occupied territories. The Prosecution thinks that their assertion can be proved by introducing some documents. In this connection it has submitted Document NO-1034, Exhibit No. 444-A in Document Book No. XV, Page 13 of the German and Page 14 of the English document book. It is a letter by you to the deputy of the plenipotentiary general for the occupied Polish territories, Dr. Pfeiffer. In this letter you are speaking of a telephone conversation between you and Maurer on one side and Dr. Pfeiffer on the other hand, in the course of which Dr. Pfeiffer was to find out for the SS in the Government-General, certain furniture factories which could, under certain circumstances be sold.
How was this letter actually originated?
A. Dr. Pfeiffer, as it is stated in the letter, is not a Standartenfuehrer but he was an SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer. Dr. Pfeiffer is a colleague of mine from the time of my studies in Cologne. Me had close contact in Berlin and we visited each other almost every week. Maurer had been with him and had asked him if possible, to name him the furniture factories which could be sold in Poland. I intervened in these conversations,
DR. HEIM: It is document book No. 17, introduced by the Prosecution, Your Honor.
WITNESS: And Herr Dr. Pfeiffer wanted to do me a favor so to speak, while I started working for the SS-enterprises. However, there was no success in that line. However, I would appreciate it if you would not forget that it is explicitly stated in the letter that this would be a regular purchase.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What document are you talking about.
DR. HEIM: It is Document No. 1034, in Document Book No. 17, page 13 of the German and page 14 of the English document book. It is Exhibit 444-A.
WITNESS: This particular furniture factory Radom which is contained in the document was not purchased either.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. The Prosecution has also introduced in connection with this count in Document Book No. 16, on page 82 of the German and page 85 of the English document book, Document NO-1021, Exhibit 448. This letter is addressed to you by the defendant Bobermin, as chief of office W-2--- and refers to Russian brick factories report to the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Did you have anything to do with the brick factories in Russia, or did you have anything to do with the report to the Reichsfuehrer-SS, since the letter is addressed to you?
A. No, I never did have anything to do with eastern factories. I can only reconstruct the entire idea in my memory, although I don't recall the details. It occured once in a while that Herr Pohl, within the framework of a discussion or conference, gave an order to somebody in order to have that person execute his order. Apparently, he gave me an inquiry on the part of Himmler.
As I knew as little about it as he did, I passed that inquiry on to Bobermin; he was closer to the East. I had nothing to do in Bobermin's field of work, and the auditor there was Fischer.
Q. Finally, in the same document book No. 16, on page 92 of the German and page 93 of the English text, I shall refer to Document NO-1015 Exhibit 451. It is a letter by the Klinker Cement GMBH, to the DWB, and addressed to you. It refers to funds for some enterprise in the GovernmentGeneral.
As an economic auditor and adviser, were you competent for that matter?
A. No; I was not. I never did advise Dr. Bobermin. He had his own economic consultant for that. All the financial transactions of the factories which were directed by Dr. Bobermin were carried out by him personally without any contact whatsoever, without discussions with me. I assume that letter was caused by a special circumstance, namely, the following: upon Pohl's initiation, Dr. Volk and myself had contacted General Konsul Koehn in the Reich Post Ministry. The minister Ohnesorge had agreed to give a credit of 25,000,00 marks on the part of the Reich Post Office. The Reich Postoffice was bound by the bugded regulations and especially those concerning the Postoffices in Germany, and those regulations required a certain security for such a credit. As a security the Reich Post demanded the deposit of the shares of the DWB. Due to this particular demand the credit could not be realized. Mr. Bobermin, however, at the time was still of the opinion, I am sure, that the money from that credit could be distributed.
Q. Did you have anything to do with the lease of these factories?
A. No, at not time. Neither with the purchase nor with the management; nor with the lease.
Q. In the opening speech for the defendant Baier it was stated that Baier in contrast to the hitherto existing tendencies had supported the scheme that the Mattoni heirs, who had the minority of the shares of the Mattoni, were to keep the shares. By that the impression could be gained that prior to Baier's time the Mattoni were to keep the shares. By that impression could be gained that prior to Baier's time the Mattoni heirs were placed under duress to sell the shares to the DWB.
Did you ever exert any such a pressure on the Mattoni heirs?
A. No; never. When I joined the DWB as an economic advisor for the DWB or the enterprises, before the DWB were founded, the shares of the Mattoni A.G. were already in the hands of the Sudetenquell, GMBH. Later on they were transferred from the Sudetenquell, GMBH to the DWB. Almost the entire number of shares - that is ninety-six percent of the total of the shares - had been purchased. The heirs of Mattoni, therefore, only had four percent in their hands. The profit of this soda water enterprise was so extremely high that it seemed absolutely appropriate not to lose any money on this profit by taxes, but rather to use it in order to cover the losses of other enterprises. That was the reason why I suggested to Herr Pohl to also conclude a corporation contract between Mattoni and the DWB. It was natural that the minority shareholders had to be paid for this loss by a current dividend guarantee. According to the legal regulations at the time, the dividend guarantee could not be higher than six percent. That six percent was also granted to Mattoni's heirs. Now, if the Mattoni heirs had been influenced in any way to get rid of the shares then this would have led to a very complicated loss in taxes.
According to German law that if all shares of an A.G. or GMBH are united in one hand, that then the man who writes the taxation laws starts from that point of view, that real estate and buildings have changed owner. Due to that fact in such a moment the real estate taxes will come into effect which amount to five percent. A transfer of the minority shares of the Mattoni to the DWB would have been nonsense from the view of taxation
Q. I shall now speak about the Osti. What do you know about the origination and the development of the Osti?
A. I was informed about the plants concerning the Osti during a conference which took place at Mr. Pohl's office, together with Dr. Horn. The point of departure for those matters was a letter by Himmler which drew Pohl's attention to the fact that in Warsaw there was a whole number of empty factories, and that there were machines and stocks there which would be spoiled. I could still remember that letter before I saw the documents here. They are discussing millions of watch glasses in the document, but during the examination I spoke of eyepiece glasses ... but that was a mistake. I am sorry. Pohl ordered Dr. Horn to immediately go to Warsaw to put all these machines and stocks in inventory and count them, to secure them, and sell them for the Reich in a trusteeship manner.
Dr. Horn immediately after that, together with a certain number of my auditors, went to Warsaw. Approximately at the same time, an agreement had been reached between Mr. Globocnik and Mr. Pohl, probably according to my assumption after they had discusses the matter with Himmler, namely that any number of larger enterprises of which Mr. Globocnik was in charge, were to be placed under Pohl's chief supervision.
In order to enable that at all, Herr Pohl, decided to create or establish a company for that particular purpose and to incorporate those Globocnik enterprises into that company. That was the beginning of the Osti.
Q What did you have to do with the Osti?
A I can recall these two conferences, particularly the one which I just mentioned. In the meantime Herr Dr. Horn had had further contacts with Herr Pohl and he had dealt with the preparation of the establishment of the company. He had worked out a questionnaire and he had asked Herr Pohl for a conference. And in order to be backed by Herr Pohl within the framework of those conferences a few more people were asked to join the conference. As can be seen from the documents I believe Herr Loerner, Dr. Volk, and myself were present.
Q Was Dr. Horn still under your subordination at the time?
A Dr. Horn was subordinated to me until that moment when he was transferred to Warsaw. That must have been, therefore, approximately on the 17th of 18th of January, because that letter by Himmler is dated the 15th. By a circular by Herr Pohl, dated 20 January 1943, all auditors were taken away from me and amongst them those who had gone along with Dr. Horn to Warsaw and who after that went to Lublin with him.
Q Was the Osti part of Staff W?
A Yes, it was. Herr Pohl ordered that the Osti be incorporated into Staff W on the organizational chart, because according to branches there was no possibility open to incorporate that company in some other box of the organizational chart. The organizational conception of Staff W was all the time a recipient for everything that could not be represented in another manner on the organizational chart.
Q Did any of the collaborators of the DWB have an influence on the Osti?
A No, none of them. The Osti was immediately subordinated to Herr Pohl. I am sure that the Tribunal will understand that at that particular moment when I say that it is impossible that a man like Globocnik who was the first manager of the Osti could possibly be subordinated to one, who was of a lower rank than he was.
He could not have been subordinated to me as I was an auditor. I could only audit, and yet I didn't audit. Somebody else did the auditing work there.
Q The documents introduced by the prosecution in this connection give the impression that you participated in the establishment and further development of the Osti. The first document the prosecution in this connection introduced is in Document Book No. III. I refer to page 67 of the German and page 66 of the English Document Book. It is Document NO-1270, Exhibit No. 67 -- I am sorry -- Exhibit No. 1. This is the questionnaire of Dr. Horn which has repeatedly been referred to here concerning the Osti. On the last page of that document, page 73 of the German and page 71 of the English text; there is a file note concerning a conference at Pohl's on the 13th of February, 1943, where this questionnaire was to be discussed. According to that document you did participate in that conference. Who was it that set up that questionnaire? Did you have anything to do with that?
A Herr Dr. Horn, who in the meantime had been in Warsaw, submitted this fragebogen to Herr Pohl and, as far as I can recall, he gave a copy to everyone of us.
Q Did you know at that time anything further about the Osti?
A Yes, I knew about the principal and fundamental plans by the first conference which took place in January. During it the three following fundamental points of view were decisive: The first one being the inventory and utilization of machines and stocks in the empty factories in Warsaw for the use of the German Reich. The second one was that the Globocnik factories, which had not been given any commercial legal form hitherto, should be incorporated into the Osti, and the third one was a plan on the part of Himmler. Himmler had become aggravated when he visited Warsaw by seeing a large number of factories which were under German supervision and management where Jews were working and where the owners of the factories had become very rich. In the conference it was shown that Himmler wanted to transfer some of those factories, together with the machines and stocks, somewhere else and manage the enterprise himself within the framework of the Osti.
At that time in order not to forget that fact I made the following marginal note on the questionnaire, or the minutes: Ponjatowa near Lublin. I could recall that Herr Pohl had used that name when he informed us that Himmler wanted to transfer various Warsaw enterprises to Ponjatowa. It was not a suggestion really, Ponjatowa was not discussed. I just put those notes down because the word was used.
Q You stated that you had nothing to do with the Osti? Why was it that you were invited to that conference on the 13th of February 1943 then?
A Dr. Volk and myself were asked to participate in the conference upon Dr. Horn's suggestion. That could only be understood if one knows the mentality of both Herr Pohl and Dr. Horn. Dr. Horn apparently did not want to go and see Herr Pohl all by himself and he wanted to have a few people with him to back him up.
Q Did you find out anything further in connection with the Osti at that conference, that is to say, what questions were discussed during that conference?
A Herr Dr. Horn tried to discuss the questions, contained in his questionnaire piece by piece. The questions were not known to anyone there and I would like to tell the Tribunal that even to this date I haven't looked through the entire fragebogen. Herr Pohl thought that he didn't like it very well that a young SS leader, so to say, was to ask him questions as if he were a school kid, and already in the middle of the second question he told him the following which is contained in this form of Dr. Horn, namely, that he was old enough to be able to be a manager in Lublin together with Globocnik and he also knew what was to be done. Nothing else was discussed concerning fundamental things.
Q In the document book introduced by the prosecution, which is Document Book No. XVIII, page 106 of the German and page 83 of the English text is Document NO-2182, Exhibit No. 471.
This is the personnel sheet for Dr. Horn. On that personnel chart the 1st of April 1943 is contained as a transfer date to the SS and Police Leader. You stated that Dr. Horn since the 20th of January, 1943, was no longer subordinated to you. Who was it that Dr. Horn was subordinated between the 20th of January, 1943, and the 1st of April, 1943?
A I had no influence whatsoever on any military conditions. It seems indubitable that Dr. Horn was later on transferred. Prior to that he had been detached. I assume that the Tribunal knows this differentiation of the military transfer method. In other words, he was still subordinated to the WVHA in Berlin, but, as far as his service was concerned, he had been transferred on duty to the SS and Police Leader in Lublin. This is some sort of a double disciplinary subordination and that detachment was probably later on changed to a permanent transfer. However, Dr. Horn had nothing to do with any particular office in the WVHA or Staff W from that particular moment on when his detachment to Warsaw and Lublin took place.
Q The prosecution introduced a letter by Bobermin to you, by which it could be assumed that Dr. Horn in February 1943 was still subordinated to you. This is contained in Document Book No. 14 introduced by the prosecution, page 49 of the German, page 50 of the English Document Book. This is Document NO-1005, Exhibit 390. What is your comment on this document?
A. In this document it is proved that Herr Pohl's circular letter had informed us of the transfer of the individual auditors to other enterprises. It is contained literally in this document. I myself had no influence personally on where the auditors went to. Several of those auditors before had been transferred for good to the OSTI, and from that moment on they had nothing to do with that so-called Staff W. Others again were working in different enterprises. For that particular reason I had to answer to Dr. Bobermin that I could not place any auditors at his disposal because they had all been taken away from me on 20 January 1943.
Q. In this letter to Bobermin of 9 February 1943 you are speaking of a special task. What do you mean by that, and why was it you did not express yourself more clearly towards Dr. Bobermin?
A. By that I meant Dr. Horn's task for OSTI. That is to say, the tasks in Warsaw and Lublin. If I wanted to be more clear about the whole thing towards Dr. Bobermin, then I would have to explain the entire thing. There was no reason to do so. On the other hand I could not possibly suspect that the expression "special task" a few years later would be used in such a connection. If I had known that, I probably would not have used those words.
Q. According to your statement so far, at that time, therefore, you knew nothing more precise about the OSTI, did you? In Document Book No. 19, introduced by the prosecution, on page 8 of the German and page 7 of the English texts, there is a letter by Dr. Horn sent you from Lublin. This is NO-1265, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 482. This letter is dated 26 February 1943. Dr. Horn in that letter states that until that moment he had written to you daily. On the basis of those letters is it possible that you were not informed of the OSTI more precisely?
A. Yes, I was informed very well about the OSTI just insofar as I said before, that is to say, so far as the three special aims were concerned. Dr. Horn was in Warsaw from the beginning, and he came to that conference on 13 February to Berlin, and that letter is dated 26 February, and actually it took him two or three days to come back to Lublin.
Now if a letter allegedly was sent daily, then this was practically within a period of eight days. However, I do know for sure that Dr. Horn wrote quite frequently. He wanted office personnel and office equipment; he wanted rubber stamps, and all of those various things you could not get very easily in Lublin; and, apart from that, Dr. Horn thought it important to incorporate those so-called DAW factories in Lublin into his factories, and he tried to involve me in this plan.
Q. In this letter Dr. Horn is also speaking of the incorporation of the OSTI contract. This one was the one that Dr. Horn in this particular connection referred to you?
A. It is stated in the letter that Dr. Volk was absent, and the preparation of the various contracts carried out on a notary basis was up to the legal department of the DWB, and, so far as I know, Dr. Hoffmann, deputizing for Dr. Volk, had prepared the matter. I personally had no telephone conversation with a notary public, nor did I do anything else about it, and I was not present at the establishment of it, either.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO: Witness, were any of these properties taken over by the OSTI operation paid for by the Reich to the former Jewish proprietors?
A. Your Honor, you mean those ones which had been incorporated into the factories? You mean the factories themselves, or of what existed in machines and stocks, or did you mean the stocks which were not incorporated, or what?
Q. No, these factories that at one time were owned by Jews. That is true, isn't it?
A. I don't know that. The way it worked was this way, Your Honor. Herr Globocnik had taken over some factories. I don't know if those were Polish factories or Jewish factories, or if he set up those factories himself, as was done in the DAW works in Lublin. Really, I don't know, because I did not see the factories, but factories did exist at that time, but I simply don't know.
Then, of course, there were a certain number of confiscated factories among them. I assume, however, that they were established by him.
Q. You say they were confiscated. Confiscated from whom?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know who owned these factories before?
A. No, I don't know.
Q. That is all.
A. It could have been Poles. It could have been Jews. I really don't know.
Q. Well then, coming back to the original question - regardless of the identity of the original owners, was payment made to those owners for the factories and the machinery which were confiscated by the Reich?
A. No, I am sure of that; I can guarantee you that now. No, they did not get that. Let's assume, for instance, it was mainly Jewish property; they did not even get a nickel for that.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, do you know that from your experience, or just an assumption on your part?
A. That is just an assumption on my part.
Q. Witness, before you stated that you did not deal in the preparation of the OSTI contract. Did I understand you correctly?
A. Yes, the contract was set up by Dr. Hoffmann, deputizing for Dr. Volk.
Q. I shall now refer to Document Book No. 14, introduced by the prosecution, page 15 of the German and page 12 of the English document books, which is Document NO-1266, Exhibit No. 483. It contains your file notes concerning your visit at Frank's office on 26 June 1943. What was the purpose of your visit at Frank's?
A. The DWB had a bank of their own. That bank did not receive the official license because there was a certain regulation blocking the establishment of new banks.
That was the reason why the bank worked the following way: The Dresdner Bank was the bank in charge and kept a special account for these intern banks of the DWB, and that account of DWB was separated into various accounts. The name of the bank of the DWB was "ZV", Central Clearing Treasury. In order to increase the business transactions of that ZV, Dr. Horn also established an account for the OSTI there. Lublin as seen from the German Reich lay outside Germany from the point of view of currency. And every bank at the end of every month had to give a list of the foreign exchange to the Reich bank. The idea of Dr. Wenner and my own visit at Frank's office was the following: Frank was to state whether the ZV also had to turn in the monthly foreign exchange report also for the OSTI. Frank said no, because the money contained in the OSTI account with the ZV Bank was Reich money, which was to be turned in to the Reich. I assume that it originated with the sale of machines and stocks, which had been sold by Dr. Horn on behalf of the German Reich in Warsaw.
Q. During the conference were any questions discussed concerning the OSTI, or the Reinhardt Action?
A. No, nothing was said about the Reinhardt Action.
Q. I shall now speak about the documents concerning the Reinhardt Action, and the Reinhardt fund. What did you know about the Reinhardt Action when you were still working for the DWB as an auditor?
A. Of all those things which are understood now by the words "Reinhardt Action" I knew nothing. If I would have had a certain point of departure, then I am sure I would have noticed all of those things and realized it, because most of the time I took notes, and I just refer to my note concerning Poniatowa.
Q. Didn't you endeavor actually to clarify that term when you heard it for the first time, namely "Reinhardt Action"?
A. The term "Reinhardt Action" I had never heard consciously. I only heard the term "Reinhardt" in connection with the Reinhardt Fund.
Q. When did you hear the word "Reinhardt Action" for the first time and realize what its real meaning was?
A. As it is understood here in Nurnberg you mean? I have to draw your attention to the fact that in the letter which was just discussed by Dr. Bobermin addressed to me dated the 20th of April, 1943, the term "Reinhardt Action" appears. The time after the 20th of January 1943, until I left the DWB as an auditor is a period of time during which I was not too intensely interested in all those matters. I am convinced that term left no lasting impression in my brain. Otherwise I would have recalled it when I arrived in Nurnberg.
DR. HEIM: May it please your Honors, this is Document NO-1015, Prosecution's Exhibit 451 in Document Book No. XVI, on Page 92 of the German and Page 93 of the English text.
Q. (By Dr. Heim) In this letter you are informed that the funds which were placed at the disposal of the Klinker cement works were to be transferred for the benefit of the Reinhardt Action. Didn't you, on that occasion, try to inform yourself, as to what the Reinhardt Action stood for?
A. No, I didn't. The word "action" in Germany is a word that is used very commonly, and particularly during the war there were hundreds of actions. I would like to point out that from January 1943 on I was working once in a while for the DWB. Then there was an additional factor that I wasn't too interested in the sources of Dr. Bobermin's money because so far he hadn't discussed anything at all about this matter with me and the entire financial transaction which were carried out for Dr. Bobermin's enterprises were done without my being consulted and without any discussion with me.